>> Real wages and beneits have not been in decline since 1973 <<
the article states that one of the reasons real wages are not actually in decline is because the government overstates the effects of inflation. what a total crock of bull! the government purposefully understates inflation because it is obviously in their best interest to do so. under reporting inflation means the government doesn't have to pay out as much in cost of living adjustments, and of course lying about inflation keeps interest rates low which is good since we borrow so much damn money.
>> I didn't just say computers and electronics. We have bigger houses, more complex cars, more of all sorts of things. <<
technology improved the standard of living of americans during protectionism as well.
>> And all of those things includeing the computers and electronics cost money. We have the money to buy them because we have beomce wealthier. People fly more often, can drive further per hour worked, we consume more even when you adjust for the bigger debt burden (we have more money to consume, its not all just borrowing money we don't really have). <<
that's all fine and dandy, but what has that got to do with free trade? we got wealthier and more productive during the times our nation was protectionist as well.
>> If technology lowers prices and we can buy more or better then we could be for, then in a very real sense we are wealthier. <<
once again, we had technological innovation under protectionism as well.
>> If you want to live like 1970 (less money spent on medical procedures, no cable or satelite TV, no internet connections, less space per person in your house or apartment, no cell phones, less land line phones numbers per person, one car for a family in many families instead of two or three for the parents and all the teenagers having thier own car, simplier cars without all the new technology (power windows, no polution control equipment, no CD players, a lesser chance of having AC or automatic transmitions ect), less travel, fewer long distance calls, no game consoles or PCs, maybe one or two TVs per family with no big screens ect) <<
all of this technological advancement occurs whether we practice free trade or not.
>> then the typical family could do so on one income at least as well as they did in 1970 <<
ridiculous. you are mixing apples with oranges. let's talk apples to apples. in the 1950's a home used to cost twice the annual salary of a couple, and women were not in the workforce nearly as much as today. today it costs four times the average annual salary of a couple to buy a home and women have entered the workforce en masse. about 50 or 60 years ago the top 1% held 20% of the wealth in this country. now the top 1% holds nearly 40% of the wealth. i could go on and on. i can't recall the exact figures off the top of my head, but not so long ago the ceo of a company used to make something like 40-50 times the salary of an average worker. now it is over 200 times.
>> Because companies adjust in a dynamic ever changeing economy <<
they are not adapting to a set of circumstances beyond their control. the multinational companies are aggressively pursuing a change in the structure of our economy, in order to enrich themselves. they lobby politicians for free trade agreements so they can continue their exploitation and pad the bottom line. this doesn't happen by accident, it is by design.
>> And while all those jobs are "going to Mexico" more jobs are created here to export to Mexico, <<
yeah well pre-nafta $6 billion surplus to a now $25 billion deficit sounds like mexico is shipping us a lot more than we are sending down there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The case for fair trade over free trade
csmonitor.com
Free trade in North America has been dandy for investors, financiers, and business, but awful for workers in all three nations.
.........................................................
Mr. Scott and colleagues from Canada and Mexico have done just that for the seven-year-old deal. The results are not pretty.
The US's growing trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has led to the loss of 766,000 American jobs since 1994. Those affected were primarily non-college-educated workers in manufacturing. Most of them found work elsewhere in the booming 1990s. But these jobs were mostly in the service sector, where the average wage is 77 percent of that in manufacturing.
The job switch also depressed wages in the service sector. The living standard of most American workers began to improve only in the past two or three years.
Business frequently threatened to shift manufacturing facilities to Mexico to weaken labor unions in the bargaining process.
A combination of diminished unions, lost manufacturing jobs, new import competition, and other factors has raised income inequality in the US.
Finally, the US trade deficit with its two neighbors increased from $16.1 billion in 1993 to $62.8 billion in 2000, taking account of inflation.
.................................................................................................
Surprisingly, NAFTA hasn't delivered its promised benefits to Mexican workers. Mexico's economy quickly recovered from the 1995 peso crisis. And American jobs did move to Mexico. But these primarily went to maquiladora areas just across the border, where working conditions are often grim.
Despite this, between 1991 and 1998, the incomes of salaried Mexican workers fell 25 percent. Incomes of the self-employed dropped 40 percent. The minimum wage lost nearly 50 percent of its purchasing power.
or other countries, or just to sell goods to increasingly wealthy Americans. The number of jobs in the US has gone up a lot since 1970 << |
